OCR Text |
Show Uy W. U. Telegraph. FISH, SCHENCK AND GRANVILLE. GRAN-VILLE. New York, 23. The correspondence correspond-ence between the American and Kng-1 lish governments, relative to the treaty of Washington, is telegraphed tonight to-night from Washington. It covers a great amount of matter previously published, commencing with voluminous volumin-ous letters and telegrams from Sehenck to Fish in February, and continuing to tho present time. Oo the 2d of June Fish confidentially telegraphed Sehenck : If the arguments argu-ments on both sides are put in at Geneva Ge-neva on the 15th, and England moves an adjournment, our government will concur. On the 3d of June Sehenck telegraphed that Granville desired an adjournment of the arbitrators without having the arguments presonted on the loth, but Fish immediately telegraphed tele-graphed back that this government dissented from such a movement, and referred to the treaty requirement that such arguments should be presented on the loth of June. If the adjournment i was contemplated by Great Britian with an idea to future negotiation, it ; should be understood that this govern- : mcnt cannot negotiate on a proposi- 1 tiou involving an idea that it may be guilty of a breach of international faith, or willful violation of its international dutios : or that it regards such acts on the part of another power, a subject of compensation, by payment in money. Sehenck, on the 5th inst,, telegraphed tele-graphed that parliament was suspicious suspi-cious of the wording of the treaty, and it suggested certain alterations and additions ad-ditions to the senate propositions; but Fish telegraphed that our government aia not ueai wun tue opposition members mem-bers of parliament, but only with the British government, and would not agrco to any alterations. He says if tho British government adopts unworthy un-worthy suspicions as reasons lor modifying modi-fying the proposed senate article, or suggests that our government will not in good faith act upon the agreement contained therein, all further negotiations negotia-tions must cease at once. He then tells Scbenck that this government regards re-gards the new rulo contained in the proposed article as a consideration, and will accept it as a final settlement of the three classes of indirect claims put forth in our case, to which England Eng-land had objected. He says, further, that any change, however immaterial, would involve discussion in the senate, but as framed by the senate it could be ratified in a lew minutes, if agreed to by England; and said that our government govern-ment having made large concessions for tho sake of maintaining important principles in the treaty can make no more. Sehenck telegraphed on tho 6 th instant that the British government did not endorse the suspicions of parliament and others. Granville sent notes to Sehenck on the 6th proposing further alterations and modifications of the senate article, to which Sehenck responded by quoting tho telegram of Fish the day previous. On the ith Granville announced that the adjournment adjourn-ment of the meeting of the arbitrators from tho 15th was absolutely necessary, and proposed a joint application for adjournment, for eight months. If this was concurred in, then the British eovemmcnt would deliver to the arbitrators arbi-trators on the 15th a summary of their argument, accompanied by a declaration declara-tion which he enclosed to Sehenck for the information of the United States. Tho declaration states that the argument argu-ment is only delivered conditionally on adjournment, and gives notice of the intention of the British government to cancel the appointment of the British arbitrator, and withdraw from the arbitration ar-bitration at the close of the term fixed for adjournment, unless tho difference which had arisen between tho two governments gov-ernments as to claims lor indirect losses loss-es shall have been removed. Fish telegraphed to Sehenck on June ,l:h, that Granville's proposition of the Mh could not be accepted by his government. govern-ment. It was in the power of the arbitrators ar-bitrators thom;elvos to adjouin upon the motion of cither party, but this government would not join in the application ap-plication for adjournment, and would Dot oppose an adjournment out of courtesy to Great Britain; but this government, neither directly nor indirectly, indi-rectly, would be a party to an agreement agree-ment whereby Great Britain could sub-I sub-I uiit her argument to the tribunal conditionally, con-ditionally, or under any pretext or reservation, the obligations of tho treaty being reciprocate. If the British eovoroment desired to withdraw or eaneel the appointment of their arbiter, arbi-ter, they must do so without asking the consent of this government, and this would terminate instamly all farther negotiations on the part of the United States. Sehenck was ioairucted to end copies of all telegrams from th and tho correspondence with Granville to Davis at Geneva, and keep thou fully advised on all further proc-edines. Io response to the above, which was furnished to Granville by Sctu-nck, the British cabinet j rvsponued that they only desired time i to P'Tiect an agreement at wineh both panics h id nearly arrived, lut'ormiug ' . Sftienok of ill" aoLinri of the British i 1 cabinet, Granvi.l.'.on tl-o 1 1th of -1 nn-y, u:cd ttiar the BiiiMi aucnt w,m:j 'lKi 1 iQainicied to pi-e-c: to i he arbitrator: 1 1 smeuicnt, that u'uud rescued a o-?ce.sity of informing the arbitra-iV;ratU arbitra-iV;ratU ihe difference between Great 1 umm nd the United States baa not yet been removed, but do not abandon the hope that if further time is given I a solution might bo found practicable, and consequently Britain would re- quest an adjournment for such time as to enable the supplemental convention to be concluded and ratified between ; die high contracting parties. ! On the 12th Sehenck received a long ; .note from Granville, indicating that upon the recapitulation of his corros- pondenco and telegrams, the British 1 government believed that the two gov-1 gov-1 crnments were substantially agreed I upon th- probable intention of the senate, sen-ate, and if them was any difference between be-tween them in principle, it was reduced to the smallest proportions. The objections ob-jections entertained and expressed by England to the language of tho senate amendment arc founded upon reasons of the greatest importance, though it is possible tho senate did not intend to I convey tho meaning which tho British I L'overnmcnt belioves tho words imply. The American government states there ', arc some cases not provided for in the j words sueecsted by England, and if the j United States will state what are the ' cases in question, England doubts not hut that a form of words will be agreed upon, which will be without objection. England never put forth language as an ultimatum and is willing to consider at tho proper tituo either language. On the 14th Fish telegraphed Sehenck: It is much to be hoped that the British Brit-ish government will authorizo the filing of their argument on the 15th, and let the treaty requirements bo fulfilled, ful-filled, and thereafter to make their motion to adjourn. This completes the history of thesup-plemcntal thesup-plemcntal article to the treaty of Washington, Wash-ington, which fails by the recent decision decis-ion of the tribunal excluding tho claims for indirect damages. |